General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold. [View all]napoleon_in_rags
(3,991 posts)Those words form a valid critique. As far as the president being responsible for what he has done but not for what he has failed to get done, this statement from the defenders less irrational than your make it look: there are in fact some fairly powerful forces working against the president, and sometimes they win.
But in the realm of rhetoric, I agree. Remember that recent poll though that shows Liberals value leaders who compromise while Republicans dont:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/libe eral-compromise-and-conservative-power.html
That's why Obama was voted in in the first place. Don't you remember his famous speech? "There are no red states, no blue states, the united states." It was a bi-partisan masterpiece, but bi-partisanship means compromise, it means centrism, and when you are trying to build compromise with a right who stands against compromise, it means moving ever further to the right, while the right backs away from you trying to avoid the appearance of compromise with you that ruin them politically.
That's why I'm disappointed about the lack of fiery rhetoric from the president. Right now, Republicans have to take extreme positions to avoid "siding with Obama" so they do, they do the two year old "no" stuff because they can't be seen to be compromising by their base. If Obama would just verbally move his goalposts a little to the left, it takes that pressure off them.
And regarding the liberals who value compromise? Are they being let down by this sort of act?
Just tell them sometimes they don't get what they want in a leader, sometimes they have to compromise. They'll understand, I promise.